I agree I couldnt see any n numbers in your pictures and any enhancements to expose the pilots name are rather despicable as I see, it but then this site has in the past couple years attracted a different crowd than was originally on here....It's why I'm more particular as to who is welcome in my campsite...soldier on James.....

Just thinking out loud here: How would it go if they pulled off all the gear and towed it on its belly with a long enough rope/ strap/ cable? Get a few folds of plastic sheeting under the belly and wet down the grass with some pails of water from the creek for good measure? Or is the ground too squishy right now?

denalipilot wrote:Just thinking out loud here: How would it go if they pulled off all the gear and towed it on its belly with a long enough rope/ strap/ cable? Get a few folds of plastic sheeting under the belly and wet down the grass with some pails of water from the creek for good measure? Or is the ground too squishy right now?

Denalipilot,
The nose gear is detached from the firewall, but the main gear is OK. A few sheets of plywood leading to a tilt-bed car hauler trailer, would work the best. I don't know what the crew will show up with. If a wrecker is required the airplane will definitely suffer. Those wings are interchangeable with a Cessna 180, about 6K a piece.

James

In the crop dusting world, part of making a successful forced landing is getting it in close enough to the road that it can be gotten out without much crop damage. However, sometimes you have to fight the police and firemen back. "Don't drive that ladder truck into this mans prime pima long stem cotton."

Super-Maule wrote:

denalipilot wrote:Just thinking out loud here: How would it go if they pulled off all the gear and towed it on its belly with a long enough rope/ strap/ cable? Get a few folds of plastic sheeting under the belly and wet down the grass with some pails of water from the creek for good measure? Or is the ground too squishy right now?

Denalipilot,
The nose gear is detached from the firewall, but the main gear is OK. A few sheets of plywood leading to a tilt-bed car hauler trailer, would work the best. I don't know what the crew will show up with. If a wrecker is required the airplane will definitely suffer. Those wings are interchangeable with a Cessna 180, about 6K a piece.

James

Noted, James. Please pardon the unsolicited advice. I'm no help on the bureaucratic stuff , (or the diplomacy stuff, ) but a good engineering challenge is hard to stay away from. Good luck!

I've been around a couple wrecks on private strips and another on a county road. Always good when no one gets hurt, the rest is just dirt and grass. Everyone is important to somebody if you know what I mean.

Good on ya Super-Maule for not raking the old fella over the coals with local LE.

Sure sorry for all the hassle and hope it turns out well. As to what camp of opinion I fall in, Iceman summed it up I think. You've got a beautiful site there and I hope that it stays that way.

Not only would I probably stand by and watch (to avoid liability as mentioned), I'd probably video it as well. Worse case for evidence, best case for our entertainment.

yeah James, take pictures for our entertainment... try not to get any license plates in the photos though...

The reason I like Idaho and Eastern Oregon so much is its a small world there.
People are friendly, helpful, and wave when you drive by.
I say give the guy a good ass chewing, dive in and help him get his airplane out of there.
But maybe your gut feeling is telling you otherwise?
I hope he doesn't give you anymore problems.

Terry wrote:The reason I like Idaho and Eastern Oregon so much is its a small world there.
People are friendly, helpful, and wave when you drive by.
I say give the guy a good ass chewing, dive in and help him get his airplane out of there.
But maybe your gut feeling is telling you otherwise?
I hope he doesn't give you anymore problems.

You think like I do. We can't let lawyers or the threat of them determine how we live and how we treat people, otherwise we live in a society that isn't much fun to live in.

scottf wrote:

Terry wrote:The reason I like Idaho and Eastern Oregon so much is its a small world there.
People are friendly, helpful, and wave when you drive by.
I say give the guy a good ass chewing, dive in and help him get his airplane out of there.
But maybe your gut feeling is telling you otherwise?
I hope he doesn't give you anymore problems.

You think like I do. We can't let lawyers or the threat of them determine how we live and how we treat people, otherwise we live in a society that isn't much fun to live in.

While I agree with you, it would sure suck if James decided to help and then got sand bagged by a liability issue. In today's world you just never know. And all over some guy landing uninvited on his private strip? Not worth it. I'd say just do as told by your lawyer and make sure your ass is covered.

A thought or two (bearing in mind that I was never an Idaho lawyer, and now that I've retired, I've given up my Colorado and Wyoming licenses, but I can't help thinking like a lawyer):
>If it were me, I wouldn't help, but I would be there to observe, photograph, video, etc. I'd be less worried about liability than getting hurt--let the old guy's friends take the risk. 1600 lbs. of airplane falling off a trailer could be pretty injurious.
>If it were me, I'd stop them if they start putting ruts in the runway. Ruts aren't easy to remove, depending on how deep they are--it's not like throwing a little dirt, especially as nice as the runway looks in the pix and video. They can be prevented using the plywood method that was mentioned. It can be pretty time consuming depending on how far the recovery vehicles have to travel, but a lot less time consuming than fixing the ruts. Or they can drive down the edge of the runway and minimize any damage that way.
>Unless there's recovery damage to the runway, I can't see doing anything "legally". When someone trespasses, causing no damage and not getting hurt, there's nothing to be done, if criminal trespass charges aren't filed. Talking about what might have happened is a waste of time--it's what actually happened that counts.

Of course, if I were to give advice to the old guy, I'd tell him that he's lucky he's not being sued (even for nominal damages, litigation would be a pain in the neck), he's lucky he didn't get hurt, and he's lucky James isn't anxious to file criminal trespass charges. And of course, I'd advise him not to use his good buddies, but rather someone who knows how to retrieve an airplane, such as Beegles in Greeley--at least someone who knows how to take an airplane apart and properly pack it for travel without causing more damage. And lastly, if there's more than $25K in damages to his airplane, that he needs to file an NTSB report.

This whole question of airstrip owner liability, since that was a sub-thread in many of the comments, isn't easy to answer. In some states (again remembering that I'm not conversant in Idaho law), a trespasser isn't protected and has no claim at all against a landowner, but if that person is a licensee or invitee, there is some responsibility. The usual question is to differentiate between trespassers, licensees, and invitees, by defining who they are and what duty is owed to them. In others, however, the landowner has some responsibility to make his property safe, at least to the extent of not having some overtly dangerous situation there (open mineshafts without any warning signs and barrier fences are a classic example) for anyone who comes on the property. I have no idea where Idaho law stands on this, and I'll bet that without doing up to date research, even Idaho attorneys would disagree. And that research has to be up to date.

For instance, here in Colorado, the legislature addressed the premises liability issue with a relatively comprehensive statute, part of which was found to be unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1989. So the legislature passed a new version in 1990, which stood the test of time for the next 16 years, was amended in 2006 to address some minor things, but which was successfully attacked resulting in a very recent Colorado Supreme Court decision that abrogates part of it to the extent it purports to put liability on some types of lessees of property.

So the law is a fluid thing, and what was true yesterday may not be true today, in any state. The law has difficulty keeping up with rapidly changing technology in some ways, but in the area of premises liability, it will depend on common law, statutory changes to common law, and court decisions interpreting both common law and statutory law. Frankly, some of it makes good sense, and some of it won't make good sense. A good example is when a trespassing child is hurt, many states will treat that child like an invitee/guest and create liability where there would be none for an adult, simply because children need more protection than adults--but then the question is if the child is 15 and there's a big sign saying "No trespassing", shouldn't that child be held to a different standard from a 5 year old child who can't read? Or how about an English sign, but the trespasser is a foreign language speaker and can't read English?

Like Alice in Wonderland said, it's all curiouser and curiouser, isn't it?

Cary

Would it be more clear if X's were on the strip, and those invited/w/permission could disregard the x's and land, and others would know they were not wanted there, or does that open up other complications.
Gary

shortfielder wrote:Would it be more clear if X's were on the strip, and those invited/w/permission could disregard the x's and land, and others would know they were not wanted there, or does that open up other complications.
Gary

Hard to say if it would help, but it would raise the question whether even invitees were actually invited, since Xs traditionally tell all pilots that the airport is closed.

For myself, I won't land on private property without getting permission. In today's world, that's typically via email, so both parties have a record of it. Many landowners also require a release to be signed in advance, which may or may not be protective, again depending on the circumstances and on the applicable state law.

Of course, nothing stops litigation if someone wants to litigate. And no matter how it looks on TV, litigation is no fun at all, for either side. It's time consuming and often very expensive. It's really too bad that our society has defaulted to the "if you don't do what I want, I'll sue you" mentality. I think that's part of the current culture, in which too many won't accept responsibility for their own actions and want to blame others, no matter what happens.

Cary

Thanks Cary. If I were younger I would go all the way to Colorado to hire you any time I got sued.

In many cases it is educational to follow the money. Every time I have been involved with a lawyer, he tells me, "Don't talk to the other guy." I expect the other guy's lawyer tells him the same. Keep it adversarial. That is the business, and a big one, they are in. I know my lawyer is friends with, and has lunch with, the other guy's lawyer. Oh! I tell him what I think. He lets me know, very clearly, I have no choice in the matter. He is right, unless I were to talk to the other guy and he were to talk to me.

In some cases I tried to talk to the other guy or potential ex-wife as the case may be. In some cases, they did not talk to me. All my dealings with lawyers have been more expensive than my dealings with other guys who would talk to me.

We may get mad at our neighbor. But when we respect our neighbor and talk, we can usually work things out. Think about war or drought or famine. Your neighbor may be in the foxhole next to you. And he may save your butt.

Hope it all works out as good as possible and ur strip is no worse for wear James.

A new neighbor crashed his R44 on our ranch while taking off after trespassing on our property. Didn't even say he was sorry, we accommodated him and let his hired help haul it out, and NTSB investigate, as we would any good friend. Less than a year later he calls the game wardens on me for flying too low? (Harassing wildlife???) on my families ranch checking on cows n water etc., as I've done for years before said dipshit showed up (this is a huge part of how I am able to do my job efficiently). We live in as BFE as u can get in Texas, wide open spaces. This is just the world we live in now, some people have no respect nor integrity...IMO it's all good to land on my families place with proper communication, due to liability I cannot give permission. My cell number's on Airnav no big deal, but to be disrespectful like it ain't private property is just mind-boggling [emoji25]

Cary wrote:This whole question of airstrip owner liability, since that was a sub-thread in many of the comments, isn't easy to answer. In some states (again remembering that I'm not conversant in Idaho law), a trespasser isn't protected and has no claim at all against a landowner, but if that person is a licensee or invitee, there is some responsibility. The usual question is to differentiate between trespassers, licensees, and invitees, by defining who they are and what duty is owed to them. In others, however, the landowner has some responsibility to make his property safe, at least to the extent of not having some overtly dangerous situation there (open mineshafts without any warning signs and barrier fences are a classic example) for anyone who comes on the property. I have no idea where Idaho law stands on this, and I'll bet that without doing up to date research, even Idaho attorneys would disagree. And that research has to be up to date.

Neither of your above examples is correct. Here's the relevant info from Idaho law.

(c) Owner Exempt from Warning. An owner
of land owes no duty of care to keep the
premises
safe for entry by others for recreational purpos
es, or to give any warning of a dangerous
condition, use,
structure, or activity on such premises to
persons entering for such purposes. Neither the
installation of
a sign or other form of warning of a danger
ous condition, use, structure, or activity, nor
any
modification made for the purpose of improving
the safety of others, nor the failure to
maintain or keep
in place any sign, other form of warning, or
modification made to improve safety, shall
create liability
on the part of an owner of land where th
ere is no other basis for such liability.
(d) Owner Assumes No Liability. An owner of
land or equipment who either directly or
indirectly invites or permits without ch
arge any person to use such property for
recreational purposes does not thereby:
1. Extend any assurance that the pr
emises are safe for any purpose.
2. Confer upon such person the legal stat
us of an invitee or licensee to
whom a duty of care is owed.
3. Assume responsibility for or incur lia
bility for any inju
ry to person or
property caused by an act of
omission of such persons.

Colorado has not yet added aviation to their RUS but it is currently being worked on.

I don't know anybody who would stand on a Xed out runway.

Bonanza Man wrote:

Cary wrote:This whole question of airstrip owner liability, since that was a sub-thread in many of the comments, isn't easy to answer. In some states (again remembering that I'm not conversant in Idaho law), a trespasser isn't protected and has no claim at all against a landowner, but if that person is a licensee or invitee, there is some responsibility. The usual question is to differentiate between trespassers, licensees, and invitees, by defining who they are and what duty is owed to them. In others, however, the landowner has some responsibility to make his property safe, at least to the extent of not having some overtly dangerous situation there (open mineshafts without any warning signs and barrier fences are a classic example) for anyone who comes on the property. I have no idea where Idaho law stands on this, and I'll bet that without doing up to date research, even Idaho attorneys would disagree. And that research has to be up to date.

Neither of your above examples is correct. Here's the relevant info from Idaho law.

(c) Owner Exempt from Warning. An owner
of land owes no duty of care to keep the
premises
safe for entry by others for recreational purpos
es, or to give any warning of a dangerous
condition, use,
structure, or activity on such premises to
persons entering for such purposes. Neither the
installation of
a sign or other form of warning of a danger
ous condition, use, structure, or activity, nor
any
modification made for the purpose of improving
the safety of others, nor the failure to
maintain or keep
in place any sign, other form of warning, or
modification made to improve safety, shall
create liability
on the part of an owner of land where th
ere is no other basis for such liability.
(d) Owner Assumes No Liability. An owner of
land or equipment who either directly or
indirectly invites or permits without ch
arge any person to use such property for
recreational purposes does not thereby:
1. Extend any assurance that the pr
emises are safe for any purpose.
2. Confer upon such person the legal stat
us of an invitee or licensee to
whom a duty of care is owed.
3. Assume responsibility for or incur lia
bility for any inju
ry to person or
property caused by an act of
omission of such persons.

Colorado has not yet added aviation to their RUS but it is currently being worked on.

I think I made it clear that I am not conversant in Idaho law. What I described, therefore, is the common law issue of trespassers vs. licensees vs. invitees, somewhat generically. Quoting a statute is not a good way of conducting legal research, as the courts have a tendency to construe things a bit different from what the legislatures appear to have said. So I would not be willing to accept that quoted statute as fully protecting a landowner without further research.

However, it is a good start, and so I looked it up--it is Idaho Code § 36-1604. Singularly, a very important caveat which every Idaho landowner should be aware of is this: The protections of the statute do not "Apply to any person or persons who for compensation permit the land to be used for recreational purposes." So charge a fee, Mr. Idaho Landowner, and according to the statute, you're back to being potentially liable, and now we're back to the common law issue of trespasser vs. licensee vs. invitee.

For the OP's purposes, this is the most significant statement in the statute: "User Liable for Damages. Any person using the land of another for recreational purposes, with or without permission, shall be liable for any damage to property, livestock or crops which he may cause while on said property."

Since 1984, there have been 14 cases in Idaho which have construed provisions of the statute. I haven't looked at any of them, so I don't know whether the Idaho Supreme Court or the Idaho Court of Appeals have construed any of its provisions to be unconstitutional, vague, improper, or what have you--but any advice given by any attorney as to its meaning better include whatever those cases have said.

I also referred to the Colorado Premises Liability law, which in Colorado is the only law under which potential plaintiffs have any claim against any landowner--and that includes landowners with private airstrips. The Colorado Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have said that over and over.

But I need to make something really clear: What is the law in one state is not necessarily the law anywhere else. So for instance, don't make your decisions based on what you believe to be the law in Idaho, if you're looking at your responsibilities as an Oregon landowner. Your decisions about your legal rights and responsibilities as a landowner or as a person using someone else's land can only be determined by adequate legal research into the law, both statutory and case law, of the state in which the land is located.

Cary

Hello Backcountry Pilots,

Just an update. The pilot/owner has hired a A&P/IA to assist in the recovery of the wrecked Cessna 182 next Friday AM from my airstrp. I'm very happy he did this, and hope all goes well. Spoke with the mechanic on the phone and he has all the gear including the trailer. Can't say I'm going to miss the Cessna lawn art at the end of my runway.

James